liara_delete_env_vars

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes/unset variables, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like permission requirements, whether deletions are permanent, error handling for non-existent variables, or side effects on the app. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, with no wasted verbiage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, auth needs), error scenarios, and what happens post-deletion (e.g., app restart). Given the complexity and risk of deleting environment variables, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('appName' and 'keys'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete/unset') and resource ('multiple environment variables for an app'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'liara_delete_env_var' (singular), which might handle single deletions, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'liara_delete_env_var' or 'liara_set_env_vars' for updates. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the app must exist or variables be set, offering minimal usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.